- From: Pat Case <PCASE@crs.loc.gov>
- Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:45:42 -0500
- To: <kai.grossjohann@uni-duisburg.de>
- Cc: <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
Kai, I will propose adding such a use case and build it if the group wants to add it. Pat >>> Kai Großjohann <kai.grossjohann@uni-duisburg.de> 03/24/03 04:04PM >>> "Pat Case" <PCASE@crs.loc.gov> writes: > From where I sit, the first thing we need is full-text querying in > XQuery encompassing functionalities which currently exist. > > As a librarian and expert searcher, I find even stemming algorithms > fail me often enough that I want to retain the crude, but totally > controllable predictable wildcards. I build better queries with > wildcards then I can with stemming, because stemming doesn't allow me to > decide which related words to include on a word by word basis. Just > because it is linguistically related doesn't mean it returns the results > I want. Stemming is black box which works against expert searchers as > often as it work for them. We feel the same about scoring and ranking. > > Different users benefit from different tools. I wouldn't expect a > novice user to use wildcards or to be so annoyed with scoring and > ranking. Thank you for the education. I'm not an expert searcher, it never occurred to me that stemming could be a problem in this way. > Which doesn't mean I wouldn't welcome the likes of a linguistic parser. > It would be a boon to all end users. Are you recommending we add a use > case which calls an implementation-defined linguistic parser (as we did > for stemming) or are you recommending more than that? It is very close. I am suggesting to add a use case which does "linguistic phrase search" and leave it to the implementation whether they use a linguistic parser or map it to proximity search or they ask the Oracle of Delphi. -- A preposition is not a good thing to end a sentence with.
Received on Monday, 24 March 2003 16:46:06 UTC